We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Symantec Data Center Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."The agentless vulnerability scanning is great."
"Support has been very helpful and provides regular feedback and help whenever needed. They've been very useful."
"The UI is very good."
"It is scalable, stable, and can detect any threat on a machine. It uses artificial intelligence and can lock down any virus."
"PingSafe can integrate all your cloud accounts and resources you create in the AWS account, We have set it up to scan the AWS transfer services, EC2, security groups, and GitHub."
"The management console is highly intuitive to comprehend and operate."
"PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"We've seen a reduction in resources devoted to vulnerability monitoring. Before PingSafe we spent a lot of time monitoring and fixing these issues. PingSafe enabled us to divert more resources to the production environment."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The technical support is good."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The benefit of working with the solution is the fact that it's very straightforward...It is a perfectly stable product since the details are very accurate."
"One of the most valuable features I found was the ability of this solution to map the network and show you the communication between your containers and your different nodes."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"The most valuable feature is the endpoint protection system."
"The console and tools are very user-friendly."
"We use the product to prevent unauthorized access to data, systems, and servers. It provides essential features for data center security."
"The advantage of Data Center Security is its ease of use and that it serves as a single unified platform, where I can apply all my security policies to protect that server."
"The real strength lies in its straightforward approach, offering just two key policies: prevention and detection."
"The tool will then detect any anomalies, such as an intruder who has breached the network, which can trigger the system lockdown feature if it's enabled and meets the defined threshold."
"The granularity of applying the policies is valuable."
"The monitoring in the management console allows us to find out what is going wrong, and it gets reports even before the user reports it."
"We recently adopted a new ticket management solution, so we've asked them to include a connector to integrate that tool with Cloud Native Security directly. We'd also like to see Cloud Native Security add a scan for personally identifying information. We're looking at other tools for this capability, but having that functionality built into Cloud Native Security would be nice. Monitoring PII data is critical to us as an organization."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"I'd like to see better onboarding documentation."
"There is a bit of a learning curve for new users."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"PingSafe's current documentation could be improved to better assist customers during the cluster onboarding process."
"Some of the navigation and some aspects of the portal may be a little bit confusing."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"They're trying to convert it to the platform as a source. They are moving in the direction of Cloud Foundry so it can be easier for a developer to deploy it."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The tool's command line and configuration are hard for us to understand and make deployment complex. It should also include zero trust, access control features and database connectivity."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"The solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"Could have better reporting capabilities and better support."
"It would be advantageous if Symantec or Broadcom, given the rebranding, could simplify the process, enabling users to leverage the antivirus functionality more easily."
"A user or administrator making the policy in the DCS should have a very thorough knowledge of the operating system or policy making. You have to be very specific about the data structure."
"They need to develop a more flexible product that can be scaled such that it fits well into a small business or a bigger, enterprise-level solution."
"This solution clashes with Microsoft defender, which results in performance degradation on the machine."
"Agent management is a challenging task."
"Adding more compatibility with common products like Microsoft would be a plus."
"There is room for improvement in enhancing its graphical user interface for a more user-friendly experience."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Symantec Data Center Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 16th in Container Security with 10 reviews while Symantec Data Center Security is ranked 12th in Cloud and Data Center Security with 11 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Symantec Data Center Security is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes writes "Provides network mapping feature for visualizing container communication but complex setup ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Data Center Security writes "A robust solution that provides comprehensive protection for data centers, offering agentless security, powerful intrusion prevention, and a wide range of security features". Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, SUSE NeuVector, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and BMC Helix Cloud Security, whereas Symantec Data Center Security is most compared with Trend Micro Deep Security, Symantec Endpoint Security, VMware NSX, Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Illumio.
We monitor all Container Security reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.